From owner-freebsd-stable Mon Jul 6 08:56:11 1998 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) id IAA29312 for freebsd-stable-outgoing; Mon, 6 Jul 1998 08:56:11 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG) Received: from antipodes.cdrom.com (castles315.castles.com [208.214.167.15]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id IAA29255 for ; Mon, 6 Jul 1998 08:55:47 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from mike@antipodes.cdrom.com) Received: from antipodes.cdrom.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by antipodes.cdrom.com (8.8.8/8.8.5) with ESMTP id IAA03498; Mon, 6 Jul 1998 08:54:59 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199807061554.IAA03498@antipodes.cdrom.com> X-Mailer: exmh version 2.0zeta 7/24/97 To: john cc: freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Intel Pro/100+ In-reply-to: Your message of "Mon, 06 Jul 1998 07:39:44 CDT." <199807061239.HAA27576@leonardo.cascss.unt.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Date: Mon, 06 Jul 1998 08:54:58 -0700 From: Mike Smith Sender: owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG > > I'd say Intel Etherexpress Pro 10/100B without the blink of an eye. I > > don't use it in 100MB mode (yet), but in 10MB it outperforms anything I > > Speaking of this, is there work in progress for support of the new Intel > card that replaces the 10/100B--the Pro 100+? Intels page says that the > new card is driver compatible--anyone using the new card? Why would there need to be any work in progress at all, if they're driver-compatible? And for that matter, why would I be recommending the 100+ if we didn't already support it? -- \\ Sometimes you're ahead, \\ Mike Smith \\ sometimes you're behind. \\ mike@smith.net.au \\ The race is long, and in the \\ msmith@freebsd.org \\ end it's only with yourself. \\ msmith@cdrom.com To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" in the body of the message